Reagan was honest as well. No doubt Mondale was surprised that Reagan reduced taxes rather than increase them.
IMHO what the 1984 election demonstrates is that the voting public prefers tax reductions to tax increases. If so, then W should win by a landslide in 2004.
Grrrrrrrr . . .
[hijack]Kimstu, you know I love you, but . . .
If you were to wake up tomorrow morning and find that the United States had been transformed into Libertaria, you would be free to find as many like-minded people as you wanted to – millions, if you wanted – and agree with them to contribute a portion of your income to a central authority to spend on democratically-arrived-at goals. You could contribute as much as you wanted as often as you wanted and nobody would be able to stop you. Libertaria does not propose to stop you from achieving, with people who feel as you do, a tax structure identical to what we have now. It proposes to stop you from forcing others to do so. I know you know that, but I think it’s an important enough point that it needs to be said out loud for the benefit of those who don’t know.[/hijack]
Anyhoo, people who are so single-minded that the push the button, pull the lever or punch the chad (especially for Federal offices) on the basis of a single issue (especially a complex one like taxation, or abortion) are, generally speaking, dingbats.
december: *Reagan was honest as well. No doubt Mondale was surprised that Reagan reduced taxes rather than increase them. *
I think you may be getting your presidential terms mixed up, december: the major tax cuts were in Reagan’s first term, after he won against Carter, and his second term did see some tax increases.
pldennison: If you were to wake up tomorrow morning and find that the United States had been transformed into Libertaria, you would be free to find as many like-minded people as you wanted to – millions, if you wanted – and agree with them to contribute a portion of your income to a central authority to spend on democratically-arrived-at goals.
True. My point was that building such a system again from scratch would be enormously burdensome. Never mind: I love you too pld and I apologize for unnecessarily diverting this discussion into more Libertaria-bashing. 
Anyhoo, people who are so single-minded that the push the button, pull the lever or punch the chad (especially for Federal offices) on the basis of a single issue (especially a complex one like taxation, or abortion) are, generally speaking, dingbats.
Yup.
As unbelievable and shocking as it may seem, I voted for Mondale too when I was a newly minted eighteen year old. I even believed the liberal Government is good kind of things Kimstu still believes in. The promises of a beneficent Government just sounded right and just in my youth. Of course, I was only a senior in High School at the time, didn’t have job, didn’t really know about the difference in net and gross, living off the family trough. By the time Dukakas rolled round, I had to pay my own rent and buy my own food, and basically didn’t give a damn about what sounded right and just in the Never-Never Land of Government optimism. Making a life for myself did a whole lot to crush the naive idealism of youth.
I am the anti-Pyrrhonist, also having been a newly minted eighteen year old for the Mondale Reagan election and having voted for Reagan, then Bush.
Facing the realities of life curbed my naive conservatism …
pldennison, that’s EXACTLY what some people did about 225 years ago. They founded Libertaria. Then some like minded people came together and democratically agreed to contribe a portion of their income to a central authority to spend on democratically elected goals. We can donate as much as we want, as often as we want, assuming we agree on this democratically. We LIVE in your “Libertaria”.
Can you donate as little as you want, too?
Let’s not be disingenuous, please, and make things mean the opposite of what they mean for the purpose of rhetoric. I’m not so all-fired stupid as to not understand the difference between The World I Would Like To Live In and The World I Actually Live In, nor am I ignorant of the value of pragmatism. Please do not treat me as if I am.
Certainly, if you have the DEMOCRATIC votes to change the tax rates. In fact, that’s exactly what Bush is doing right now. Changing the taxes to pay less because he and others do not want to pay the same amount they used to pay.
Just to expand here, Reagan raised Social Security taxes, which is a regressive tax since it cuts out after a certain amount of income and since it doesn’t apply to any forms of unearned income (in fact, since I myself am [just barely] hitting that cap, I believe that George W. and I pay exactly the same amount in social security taxes even though his income is like a couple mill a year…mainly unearned…and mine ain’t). I believe that this is precisely the sort of thing that Mondale was saying he would do…Raise taxes in a way that hit the lower and middle class folks while leaving his rich friends relatively unscathed.
I’m willing to admit that there is a compulsory nature to taxation, even if it does stem from a collective decision through the democratic process about how much each person must contribute to the maintenance of the society that we all enjoy.
However, what I never understand is how some libertarian folks can’t admit to the fact that our freedoms are also restricted by others, particularly the corporations of the much-worshipped “Free Market”. The argument always seems to be, “Well, you can always choose not to buy and thus your freedom is in no way restricted.” Right! :rolleyes:
Feel free to set up and burn down all the straw men you’d like, jshore. My sentence that you quoted was a direct response to Flymaster’s assertion that “we LIVE in your Libertaria,” a statement which is obviously false. If we did, there would be no (or, at any rate, inconsequential) points of disagreement between me and you, or between Libertarian and Kimstu.
jshore, I’d be surprised if this is what Mondale meant. SS funding has always been separate from the regular budget. SS contributions pay for SS benefits. Regular taxes and borrowing pay for normal government services.
I assumed Mondale meant that eagan would raise income taxes, etc., since the federal budget (ex. SS) had been running big deficits for many years.
Do you have any evidence or cites supporting your interpretation?
So the government has a choice w.r.t. to me, reduce it’s debt by $300 (thereby saving itself approximately 5% interest)…
or…
give me $300 that I can pay off my 13.9% credit card, essentially re-financing it at government rates. I mean I will either pay now or later, it is really just a matter of at what rate.
And now I’m being required to finance your refinancing?
This is good for you, but its good for me exactly how?
Why would you pay my tax burden? It isn’t a matter of me not paying, it is a matter of when I pay.
I’m not paying your tax burden…I’m paying the interest on that $300 at 5% until the government lives up to its obligations. I’m paying the interest on that $300 at 5% that the government could earn themselves (or more) should they choose to invest it in say, the social security trust fund that isn’t a trust fund. Or I’m paying for the cost of delaying important infrastructure projects that would be harder or more expensive to undertake 5 years from now when we are in desparate need than currently when we have money. Eventually, all these things will come due and someone will have to pay for it - namely anyone still paying taxes at that point in time.
(See I told you I was a lot more fiscally conservative than I pretended to be)
Stop me if you’ve heard this one …
It isn’t only “liberals” who oppose the tax cut, it’s moderates, and even traditional (non-Reaganite) conservatives. You know the types - the brand of conservative that used to believe in that boring old stuff like accepting responsibility for paying debts.
So here’s why: I’m opposed to the tax cuts precisely because I want people to “keep more of our own money”, to coin a phrase. How’s that grab ya?
By paying down the national debt (our collective debt, mind you, not that of some separate entity called Da Gubmint), more credit and capital become available for private investment in economic wealth-generating activities instead of being consumed by government paper. Less tax money has to go toward simply paying obligatory interest, therefore less of the budget is off-limits. There is less pressure on the Treasury and Fed to pay obligations by simply printing more money - that’s called “inflation”.
Those of us who remember a time before the '90’s remember and still fear inflation - the constant eroding of value of personal savings, the constantly weakening buying power of our incomes, the reduced ability to improve our situations either personally or collectively because of it. Ending, or at least severely limiting, inflation has allowed us all to “keep more of our own money” to a much greater extent than Bush’s attempts to bribe us voters (not that I’m returning the check, heh heh, but my price is higher than that). Abandoning the effort, as Bush is doing, raises the spectre once again.
We will do much better over the long run to pay down the debt while we’re in a good position to do so. We should not be happy that the Republicans are giving us a fish that will feed us this year; we should ask them to help us invest in our own fishing equipment that will feed us for years to come.
And I was basically agreeing with you, but only pointing out that this vital distinction between government restrictions of freedom via the compulsory nature of taxation and the ways in which freedoms are restricted in other ways by other entities (and would likely be to an even greater extent in Libertaria) is kind of lost on me…which I guess is the reason why the differences in our viewpoints is not inconsequential!
december: You may be correct on this point in so far, as near as I can tell (although I haven’t been able to get a definitive cite on this), the raise in the SS taxes already occurred during Reagan’s first term. Mondale assumed that Reagan would have to raise taxes somehow to deal with the deficit. In actual fact, there were some tax reforms enacted during his second term that both raised and lowered taxes and the deficit problem was simply not dealt with.
This is the take on domestic economic policy from Discovery School (basically World Book Online) http://school.discovery.com/homeworkhelp/worldbook/atozhistory/r/460910.html :
Baba seems to have confused using curse words with making a valid and logical argument.